Davisite logo
Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

Category: Transportation

  • A Long-Term, Pragmatic Plan for a Livable & Sustainable Davis

    By The Davis Citizens Planning Group

    The Davis Citizens planning group would like to present our vision for a pragmatic, realistic, and sustainable way to develop our city going forward.   This vision represents several months of work and builds upon a series of articles we have published over the past two years on the topics of how we might plan our city to have housing that is  more affordable, sustainable, and a city that is more liveable and economically viable.

    In the past we have framed our commentary in a reactive way with respect to the developments in the housing proposals being considered.   Going forward, we have decided to be more proactive, starting with best practices, and advocating for a top-down city-wide vision for how we develop our city not just for the upcoming 25-year general plan cycle, but looking towards the end of the century.

    Over the past few decades, more and more thinkers in the field of urban planning have come around to endorsing what is essentially the same set of strategies for urban planning:

    (more…)

  • UCD Sustainable Transportation Plan Open for Public Review Through May 4

    Students navigate a mix of bikes, e-scooters, skateboards, and foot traffic on campus—illustrating the growing complexity of how people move through the Davis campus. (Courtesy photo / UC Davis)

    (From press release) UC Davis is inviting the broader Davis community to review and comment on a draft of its updated sustainable transportation plan through May 4.

    The plan—called Moving Forward Together—has been in development for over a year and outlines more than 100 possible improvements for how people get to and move through campus, from safer crossings and separated bike paths to better transit connections. It marks the first comprehensive update since 2009, with recommendations supported by input from more than 3,000 people, along with an analysis of travel patterns, infrastructure gaps, and collision data.

    Why this plan matters

    (more…)

  • Why I Now Support Village Farms Davis

    by Alan Pryor

    Introduction

    I have been a fairly consistent opponent of most peripheral development projects in Davis over the past decade. For instance, I was the Principal Officer, Treasurer, and Chair or Co-Chair of the No on Nishi 1 (Student Housing),  No on West Davis Active Adult Community (Senior Housing), and both the No on both DISC 1 and DISC 2 campaigns (primarily Commercial).

    All of those peripheral annexation measures failed except West Davis Active Adult Community. But none of these projects provided for family housing for modest income buyers. I think Davis desperately needs that type of family housing and I believe the Village Farms Davis project provides it so I support the Project.

    As a result, I recently both publicly endorsed the Yes on Measure V campaign and was a  co-signer of the Rebuttal to the Argument Against Measure V that will appear on the June ballot.

    Many folks that I had previously worked with opposing other projects have accused me of abandoning my slow-growth and/or environmental principles after hearing of my endorsement of Village Farms Davis or reading some of the articles I have published about various environmental aspects of the project. Some are saying it is inexplicable to them why I would make this seemingly sudden change in my views toward peripheral development and endorse this Project.

    Well, the reasons are actually pretty simple. I opposed past peripheral development projects because I did not feel any met all of the 3 primary criteria that I look at when considering supporting or opposing a project. And the reason I can now support Village Farms Davis is because I can now check-off each of the boxes for the same 3 criteria – 1) the Features of the Project itself, 2) the Location of the Project, and 3) the Quality of the Developers of the Project.

    Let me explain.

    (more…)

  • Rebuttals to for-and-against ballot arguments are now available

    Roberta Millstein

    In an earlier article, I posted the for and against arguments for the Village Farms project. The rebuttals to each of these arguments are now available on the County’s website, and I have pasted them below. Village Farms is subject to a Measure J/R/D vote of all Davis citizens and has been assigned as Measure V.

    Here is the rebuttal to the argument in favor of Village Farms that will appear on our ballots in June (the rebuttal to the argument against follows after that):

    (more…)

  • Ballot arguments for and against Village Farms now available

    By Roberta Millstein

    This post is to just let people know that the arguments for and against the Village Farms project are up on the County’s website. The rebuttals to the for and against arguments are due by March 3; I will post them at some point afterward. Village Farms is subject to a Measure J/R/D vote of all Davis citizens and has been assigned as Measure V.

    Here is the argument in favor of Village Farms, i.e., in favor of Measure V, that will appear on our ballots in June (the argument against follows after that):

    (more…)

  • Setting the Record Straight – Part 1

    Myths vs. Facts about Village Farms Davis

    by Alan Pryor

    I. INTRODUCTION

    Opponents of Village Farms Davis have made numerous misleading and/or outright false claims about the Project and its supposed adverse environmental impacts on Davis and its residents. Their allegations are made without almost no quantitative supporting data from independent, verifiable 3rd-party sources to support their claims. Unfortunately, these naysayers instead rely on speculation and innuendo to attempt to disparage and denigrate the proposed Project.

    This article is the first in a series that will present detailed information that factually refutes each of these untrue “myths” and false allegations made by project opponents . This first article summarizes the false claims and provides a brief summary response followed by a more in-depth discussion refuting some of the allegations that require additional information to refute them. Subsequent articles in the coming weeks will further address some of these false claims in much greater detail.

    (more…)

  • The General Plan won’t be a Genial Plan

     

    Screenshot 2025-07-30 8.22.55 PM"The goal is to manipulate

    Heavy hands to intimidate

    Snuff out the very idea of clarity

    Strangle your longing for truth and trust

    Choke wisdom sapience and prudence

    The war economy is inviolable violently

    Suppresses all intelligence that conflicts

    With the stakes of those who drive it."  - 

    From "Melodie is a Wound" by: Laetitia Sadier, Tim John Gane. Performed by Stereolab. Album: Instant Holograms On Metal Film. Released: 2025.  https://youtu.be/Nndpg90P2O8?

  • Speak Out at June 17, 2025 City Council Meeting to Increase Funding for Roads and Bike Paths

    By Elaine Roberts Musser & Dan Carson

    On June 17, 2025 the City Council will “finalize” the 2025-2027 city budget, although it is not written in stone and subject to change. The grim reality is the lion’s share of Measure Q funding (recently approved sales tax increase) has already been spent on employee compensation, and there is absolutely no Measure Q funding left. 

    Thus there is zero money to front load more funding for roads and bike paths as recommended by both City Council and City Staff.  $14 million is needed, but only $8.6 million has been set aside, the same inadequate pavement management funding as before. So the pavement will further deteriorate from its current abysmal state, and be exponentially more expensive to fix, adding tens of millions of dollars to the already huge backlog of pavement projects. And it will present particularly unsafe conditions for bicyclists, especially children going to school.

    It should be noted the Yes on Q ballot statement, signed by all five sitting City Council members at the time, declared Measure Q was: “To support essential city services, such as…pothole repair… and bike path maintenance”.  Instead, the City Council devoted Measure Q funds to increased employee compensation, while the draft budget plan released May 20 would spend nothing more on roads and bike paths.

    This is a bait and switch, an abject betrayal of the voters who approved Measure Q.

    (more…)

  • Measure Q was a “bait and switch”

    By Elaine Roberts Musser

    During the 6/3/25 City Council budget discussion, I stated: “There will be no Measure Q revenue left to frontload funding for roads and bike paths as promised in the Measure Q ballot language. This would be a bait and switch scam, an abject betrayal of voters who approved Measure Q.” Mayor Vaitla responded: “This accusation of bait and switch is inappropriate.…” I beg to differ.

    Bait and switch consists of a misleading statement intended to deceive voters, that is likely to influence voters, and will probably result in harm.

    Let’s take a look at what happened with Measure Q funding. The ballot statement, signed by all five sitting City Council members, declared Measure Q is: “To support essential city services, such as…pothole repair… and bike path maintenance”. Notice it did not mention employee raises. The City Council knew the specific ballot language about roads/bike paths was apt to convince voters to approve Measure Q. Yet the City Council spent Measure Q funds on employee raises, but nothing on roads/bike paths. That deception will result in the city’s abysmal roads/bike paths deteriorating further at exponentially greater cost.

    As the budget is finalized on 6/17/25, the only way the City Council can nullify the Measure Q bait and switch is to cut costs in other areas of the budget – and redirect that funding towards roads/bike paths. Then, and only then, can Mayor Vaitla with justification, claim there was no bait and switch.

  • Council Should Act Now to Fix the Deep Fiscal Mess It Has Created

    By Dan Carson and Elaine Roberts Musser

    A newly published long-range financial forecast for the city brings dire warnings of shortfalls and outright deficits over the next few years. Below, we outline tough but fiscally responsible actions the Davis City Council should immediately take to rein in this serious fiscal mess, substantially of the City Council’s own making.

    The May 27, 2025 analysis prepared by the Baker Tilly Advisory Group in collaboration with city staff found the city faces budget shortfalls of roughly $3 million each of the next two fiscal years. They estimate this would leave the city with a bare-bones General Fund reserve, in a period when the risks of recession and inflation are dramatically rising nationally because of severe funding withdrawals in Washington DC and Sacramento.

    Second, absent some painful but unavoidable decisions, the analysis found that the city will likely be completely financially underwater within five years, with annual spending exceeding annual revenues.  In other words, we are rapidly moving from having inadequate reserves to having no reserves at all, as well as serious deficits projected to grow to $5 million annually. Even these numbers may be a bit optimistic. The forecast assumes 2.5 percent annual growth in city pay even though newly signed contracts allow up to 4 percent pay growth for many workers supported from the General Fund.

    Few Davis residents likely know about this serious financial predicament. The forecast report was released to little fanfare and sparse news coverage in a Council workshop held in the late afternoon at the Senior Center, instead of the City Council’s usual meeting in the evening in Council Chambers. As this is written, no city press release has been issued to highlight these grim developments.

    (more…)